Edge dowsing # 2

[Edge]

Something is wrong with the forum so I'm posting this one to see if it will go right,and so my post isn't buried in the middle of the thread.



Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice
At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.

Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead.
If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Some one has to do a barbi.

If I find it, the spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.

Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse. If you think I can't then I'll fail, 7 out of 10.

I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.

You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

After all why wait a year?


:eek:

----
I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.
----


It isn't a waste of time. It is so after a failure there are no excuses.

[davidhorman]

It isn't a waste of time. It is so after a failure there are no excuses.

I know it's pedantic, but Edge has amply demonstrated the above to be false. It's better to say "no justifiable excuses."

:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
Something is wrong with the forum so I'm posting this one to see if it will go right,and so my post isn't buried in the middle of the thread.
Yes, it's a glitch in the time stamp. Most of us have already figured out how to find the recent posts.

Originally posted by Edge
Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.
What rules? Would you describe them please?

Originally posted by Edge
Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead. If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Unless you can tell us EXACTLY what you plan to do, this isn't going to happen. Remember, the rules have to be agreed on by both parties.

Originally posted by Edge

Some one has to do a barbi.
Sorry, if I am going to have sex, I prefer real women ;)
Originally posted by Edge
If I find it, the spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.
... and several identical containers to cover the gold, right? Remember that you tend to cheat when you can see where the gold is.

Originally posted by Edge
Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse. If you think I can't then I'll fail, 7 out of 10.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you PLEASE describe exactly what you plan to do?

If you mean to pick the correct container out of only two choices, then your average should be 50% (exactly like a coin flip). In order to have significance, you would have to perform many more than ten trials. Flipping heads 7 times out of ten is not that unusual. Flipping it 90 times out of 100 is quite unusual. Again, you would have to agree beforehand what implies statitistical significance. However, if dowsing is as accurate as you claim it to be, you should be satisfied with nothing less than 100%.

Originally posted by Edge
I’m not going to waste my time telling you, " its’ there In the open test" when we all know where it’s at.
You obviously don't understand the purpose of the "open test", Edge. It is to keep you from making excuses later, although it doesn't seem to keep you from trying to make excuses. By "finding" the gold when you know where it is, you are "tuning" your dowsing skills to make sure they are working. Why do you have a problem with this? Of course, you have to force yourself to use only your dowsing skills in the open test instead of cheating and lying as you did in the first test.

Originally posted by Edge
You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

Get what? You haven't described the test. Do what again? You haven't done anything once? Big deal? Yes it is. Maybe you are independantly wealthy, but to me, a million bucks is a very big deal.

[MRC_Hans]

Edge, for chrissake, go dowse some gold somewhere and make your own money! If you can dowse gold, where's your Caddilac?

Hans

[wert]

Re-posted from the other thread since obviously edge wants to kill that one so he can start fresh.

If you had waited until today or tomorrow, all the boards time problems would have resolved themselves.

Anyways, my last post from the other thread.


Originally posted by Edge
Ok Tell you what You talk the talk you set it up, before I can redo the test according to the rules, my choice
At ft-Lauderdale
With Jref.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erm. No. You have to setup the test with Randi that is acceptable to you both. I'm sure you understand this now as you've filled out the challenge application once and we've explained it to you countless times.

You know, the way you did the first time when you failed miserably.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I believe I can't take the test over till what is it March, say in a month or two instead.
If you can do that I will do it over again in a spot out side, down there, that I pick.
Some one has to do a barbi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's pretty obvious that you're squirming for a way to avoid a fair test by setting up some test under your terms only.

Conveniently without the input of Randi or the JREF I'm guessing?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I find it, he spot to do the test all I'll need is two pieces of gold and one stick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF? IF?

In other words, you're giving yourself another "out", another excuse.

We see right through you edge.

You lied blatantly before. Why should we trust you now? Wait the year, take the test fairly an then perhaps we'll consider believing you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten tries blind should do it since you know I can dowse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorta like the ten blind tries you had in your first fair test?

The one that you failed? The one that you scored one lousy hit out of ten tries? That one?

Edges failure right here folks!

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You get that and I’ll do it again. No big deal right.

After all why wait a year?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I'll gladly wait the year to see you take a fair test administered properly by the JREF.

Attempting to setup your own test without the participation of JREF is a transparent ploy to avoid a fair re-test by Randi.

Re-apply to Randi. He expects you to. And he also expects you to fail.

Prove him wrong if you can and take his million.

Until then, you have no credibility.

We see you clearly for the liar that you are.

[Edge]

Man you guys just suck.
I will get in the closed test at least 7 of 10
Their way ten picks, Ill whip them, Ah hell I'll tell them where the 10 are in the open, there.
In my mind I'm 11 out 20.
March is a bad month talk to him he can change the rules just put it in writing.
Once I pick the spot turn me around and blind fold me then they can do their thing, Then turn me around and I won’t be happy till I get 10 of 10.
If I win we'll do it a second time and then we can go for the money, ok? Do the legwork or some thing do some thing but I need a second, any takers to watch them , this will be virgin ground??
Dig it?


I’m in no hurry until May…

Thanks for the link wart it was March.
Now you talk and lets see if he will listen to you?
Oh yea it's time for a pic.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
How old are yoiu guys? .

Odd to hear you complain about juvenile behavior, Edge. Remember this post?
Originally posted by Edge
I'll set you up with tricky's sister if you want here is a picture.:D

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge:

They know how to do the tests du huh!!!!!


Obviously they don't, since the test procedure must be agreed upon by both parties and you don't seem forthcoming with clear details on what rules you propose, or how to get over obvious problems with experimental controls.


You mean like this ass hole!!!!


You really should quote someone when you're going to spout invective, just so we know you're not raving at the voices in your head.

[wert]

Edge is trying an old tactic that folks use when they fail the challenge. (or simply don't want to take it)

They propose a "counter challenge", hoping they can leave it vague enough that they never have to actually take or re-take the test.

Then that person can crow that they "challenged Randi" but he wouldn't test them under their unilateral test conditions.

Face it edge.

You were tested fairly.

You agreed at the time that the conditions were "100% ok" with you.

You stated that your power was working properly in the "open" tests.

When the closed tests came you got exactly ONE correct, thus failing miserably to show that you can dowse under test conditions.

Then you come here and lie about your "powers" and spew lame excuses. "Electrical waves from behind the wall, That Randi Knew about"? "Gold" ink in the encylopedia distracting your stick?

Anyone can read about your failure right here.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.


I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.

I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick..

The idea is in the field it's all closed so there is two ways of checking.

If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.

Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.
I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.

Tricky sorry about the other night I was pissed off about a lot of things as there is a lot on my plate right now and I will delete the above.
That's what happenens when I have three rum and cokes, I usually do not drink.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.


We don't twist it, edge, we point out the errors in it. BTW, I think what you meant was "status quo", even though that is incorrect usage. Or I could be wrong. What does "stasis que" mean?


I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.

In this sense, "fair" means a fair test of you ability. You have stated that for various reasons, (electrical, ink etc.) it was NOT a fair test of your abilities. If you are now saying that it WAS a fair test of your abilities, then you accept the test as evidence that your abilities do not exist. Glad to hear you have come to your senses.


I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick..
All this rambling. Would you please tell us exactly what you propose?


The idea is in the field it's all closed so there is two ways of checking.
Of which you have only described one, and that description was so full of gibberish that even a geologist (which I am) could not understand it.


If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.
LOL. Do you seriously think Randi (or anyone) will agree to a test where you don't give details of what you are going to do? Those aliens must have left some sort of implant in your brain that blocks out logic.


Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.
I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.
I have never met Randi or any member of JREF, but I would say that you first have to fill out the entry form. You have done this before, so you know what you need to tell him. The most important thing is to describe exactly what you are going to do and how it can be determined (without judging) whether or not your results were accurate. As I recall, this took MANY emails between you and Randi the first time, and Idoubt he wants to do that again. Since you should have the procedure down pat now, you can speed things up considerably by following the same pattern as was agreed upon last time.

Have you thought about my suggestion that you repeat the exact same kind of test in a field that you have determined is gold-free and interference free? That would be by far the easiest thing, and would speed things up tremendously.


Tricky sorry about the other night I was pissed off about a lot of things as there is a lot on my plate right now and I will delete the above.
That's what happenens when I have three rum and cokes, I usually do not drink.
Thank you Edge. It takes a big man to apologize. I have always said you were a nice guy. I truly hope you acquire critical thinking skills.

Best of luck.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.....

Is there something paranormal about the ALCOA logo? Oh, I know - "A" for alien - my bad.

[Edge]

No it's my product of choice. You guys are jumpy...
But it does remind me of space invaders remember the game?

I don’t think there’s any thing about dowsing that’s paranormal either.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
I don’t think there’s any thing about dowsing that’s paranormal either.
Well, you're right in a sense, because dowsing doesn't work. If it did work it would be paranormal.

[wert]

Originally posted by edgero
Again if I give you the knowledge of what I know you twist it and make it fit your stasis que, so you can feel safe.Um, no Status Quo here. We just want you to prove that you're not lying to us about the test being fair or not.
I never said it was unfair,You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.Was the test fair or not?

It is a yes/no answer. No more rambling excuses please.

Also,

Did you or did you not agree that the conditions for dowsing were okay before you started the test?

I can do the open with out affecting my out come in the closed test also since you think I want to change any thing to affect the out come I will do it one day without James risking his money but the second day I will go for it in spot # 2 that I will also pick.. Ah, how sweet of you to insist on a time limit and very restrictive unilateral conditions for your next self imposed "test".

You won't have any credibilty at all until you agree on fair re-test conditions with Randi and then prove your ability under Randi's fair test.

But you've shown us that you have nothing but excuses.

All this nonsense about "randi has to come to the field with me", "Randi has to re-test me before march" etc. are just a transparent ploy on your part to save face rather than admit the truth.

Your dowsing "powers" simply don't exist.

If they did, you'd be a million bucks richer now after passing the fair test that you claimed you were 100% ready to take.


If I win then you'll want to know all the details won't you but then I won't give them.I'm not exactly holding my breath till you "win".

Then I stated that if you want me to take it so badly do some thing to speed up the process because you act like you have some say or pull with Jref, get the paper work going, talk to Randi.Um. No. It's your burden to prove you're not lying about your dowsing powers. Trying to put the repsonsibility on someone else or Randi is just avoiding the re-test.


I'm willing to do it but it has to be before March.
But alas you really don't know the rules and they can be change if all parties agree.
Ah, a time limit to save face since you know you have to wait a full year for a re-test.

And you know that rules can be agreed upon by you and Randi. You did it before and you can do it again. Unless of course you're afraid of the fair re-test by Randi hmmm?

Just for fun, Here's a bit of a compendium of excuses from Edge concerning his failure to dowse under fair test conditions that he agreed to. Some of these seem to indicate that JREF is "deleting his threads" and other such nonsense also...

And why not refresh yourself with a nice article by Randi outlining Mike G's Complete failure to prove that he has dowsing abilities.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Please note this list is not complete. There's more, but this should be a good sampling.



Now, following the tests, Mike said that he'd found, all through the trials, that his stick was being "distracted" by the "gold" lettering on a double set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the shelves located near cups #1 and #2. Remember, he'd "tuned" his forked stick specifically to react to gold. We told him later that there was no gold in that location, either, since the book lettering is done with a bronze-powder ink.


I can prove it day after day in the field does he have the stamina?
After all he's about 80 or so.

I don't need no open test the second time around as they now know I can dowse.

You’re tiring to discredit me because I failed to win.

Behind the books in that spot on the other side of the wall I believe was a good size copy machine and scanner, I'm not sure but it was about 3 or 4 feet tall or on a desk.

From my point of view this is information not excuses.
Call it what you like if it makes you safe in your room!

As this happened I was trying to learn the difference in the attractions, the one holding and the ones that were not that were showing attraction. There are many reasons for it doing that. In my house here, there was more interferences, it was worse, at the foundation it was way better but interferences were there too just not as bad.

Dowsing for gold occurs were its mined not in an office, there the success rate is 100%.

He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold (stated before tuning up his stick and failing miserably)


I had three threads one was deleted by me and the other two, Well not by me.

I'll give you a hint, behind the wall is something with electrical fields running through it., James knows what’s behind the wall.

I don't know if the date that I can go back to the foundation for retesting is going to interfere with my plans, understand?


I thought the conditions would be acceptable and I could over come that false readings or interferences, after going through all the trouble I was determined to try, you just don't have a clue as to what drives me but after just checking the room before the pilimanary test I all ready knew I was going to have a hard time of it.


Some times money doesn't mean nothing compared to making an attempt at pleasing everybody, that is the best way I can put it.
It's what you try to do for others that is worth more than money by not following my dreams for the moment I have made my own people happy that I’m here, Understand?

You can see the target, if i said it's over there when it's obviously in 3 not 9 then I would be crazy and the test would be over because of my blindness to the real world.
LMAO.


James has a couple of things wrong here, now that you mention it.

Since you don't believe me ask James about all the extra readings?

It's the Jref office I never said he did anything to sabotage me.
Hell my house was the same, did I sabotage my self? It’s self-evident if you dowse.
They have many things that can interfere there.

In the open test it's visible and I had to show that there was an attraction there, but there were still attractions were it was not.

It wasn't total (success) it was as good as I could do in the office.

The foundation explains it in scientific medical terms that make that knowledge a dead end.

(Randi)Just forgetful, like any one else.

Maybe then but now I know better, you have to fail sometimes to get it right. (When asked if he initially approved of the test conditions)

If you want to prove something then lets go to the field where dowsing for gold occurs what your not scared are you?

These are things that I know, most things on the list are found in pockets or cracks containing gold in the field they are dowsed together, in real life they are not together and that’s when miss readings occur do you want the list again?

But I was talking about electrical fields that are all through their office not including other points of attraction.

They are running a computer related business think of the amount of machinery that's there producing electrical fields one of the major attractions.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Um, no Status Quo here. We just want you to prove that you're not lying to us about the test being fair or not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was unfair, You seem to say those things for me, only to win I would have to figure out what went wrong and I have I know how to fix that problem, if you can't accept that then it's your bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the test fair or not?


It's a fair test but not in an office.

I do not tune a fork I tune a guitar, you can tune a piano but not a fish.

You know wart I already accepted defeat why you would want to bring it up in the first place after it was talked about BEFORE, especially on a U.F.O. thread is beyond me except to discredit that thread.

People must be listening to that thread with as many hits as it has.

I get it now 4000 plus readers how does that make you feel?
Jealous?


Look I will take the test for the 2100th time if it doesn't interfere with my plans and to show you that those plans are real I will e-mail you from my destination.
Not you or this or Randi will stop my destiny to mine again.
Only one person knows why I took the test and what my reasons were and he’s not talking I knew before I left that it may be tuff, it’s not tuff in the field.

If I move from Florida to California then the test should be done there in the field.
If it is not then I will document what I do and show it to the world.
Do you think that I will drop every thing to come back to Florida? You must be insane. You must be insane and obsessed with something about my U.F.O. thread.
Is my talking about it bothering you?

Not You or Jref will not win in the field.
It’s so simple!
I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.
IF I GO TO Lauderdale I will do it outside and then I will win.
Million dollars doesn’t mean **** to me if I am on my way to mine and live there.
I would rather live there and be poor than to spend another minute in Florida.
Especially in Lauderdale have you been there?
In my hometown in Calli, I could hit a million in the creek.

The guy that taught me to dowse, asked me a question, did I like to mine?
I said yes but that it was hard to be consistent.
He said I'll teach you how to dowse so that you'll never have to turn a shovel with out it holding.
Damn if he wasn't right. There is nothing you can say that can change the truth in that statement because I lived it for 6 years, maybe this will penetrate that thick skull of yours?
If you want to see it in action then you have to mine, can it be proved under a controlled environment?
May be but not in a building.
Various properties inside and outside down here in Florida I got varying results, outside in Lauderdale was the best as far as lack of anomalies in the ground so I would say that it might be a fair test outside but I’ll have to check it and see and that will take time and energy along with money to blow. You want to help with that?
Oh yea that’s not why your doing this because when it comes to that you all tuck your tails and run…

Do you think that I would go back there to the gold fields with out knowing that knowledge and that he was right?
Leave my job?

You asked what happened remember? I didn't just start spouting off excuses, we weren't even discussing dowsing, When I gave you information on how I look at it, then you charged me with excuses.

But you brought it up Du hu.

If you think you can go to a river and just start pulling gold up where ever you set in your sadly mistaken every year after the snow and fall rains it gets blown out of one spot and sent to another not all but most.
It is a daunting task to tie into a good line that's holding. Until you work the ground you will not know what’s there. I wont know geologists wont know and Randi and Jref wont know it’s the fairest way of testing, how simple can it be?

Book knowledge is good for basics but you need an EDGE.

If you even think this discredits the UFO phenomenon you are mistaken and deluded.
I will post all new evidence there as I find it.

You guys do the same thing there, claim that I think they are all E.Ts, but in reality they can be explained as natural or man made, the other categories that they fall into are E.Ts., angels, fallen angels, time travelers, living creatures, ball lightning, geological events such as plate tectonics, like dowsing there are many loop holes that I don’t even know about and am learning every day but unlike you all I have done it, and seen it, and witnessed it THEN YOU WILL REALLY NEVER to a certain extent KNOW FOR SURE.
I’M JUST A LITTLE FARTHER ALONG.

[Flatworm]

I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.


The problem is that one of those ways (i.e. digging up the site and trying to find if there's still gold) is not paranormal or even remarkable in any way. Why do you insist on tying the two methods together? Why won't you let us test your dowsing ability on its own?

[wert]

Originally posted by Wert
Was the test fair or not?


It's a fair test but not in an office.Ah, but you hammered out the details of the test in great detail with Randi.

Now you want to have it both ways? The test is "fair", but also "unfair" because it was in his office?

Either it was fair or it wasn't. Sounds to me like you're saying it was "unfair" since Randi and you did the test in the office. You could have easily have changed this in your initial setup of the test, but chose not to do so.

So you're lying again. And we all can see it.

And here's the full text of edge's failure to dowse for all those interested

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


I do not tune a fork I tune a guitar, you can tune a piano but not a fish.Sigh.

So, you're claiming that Randi was Lying when he quoted you thusly?
He said he had always been successful in detecting each and all of these seventeen items, when his forked stick was specifically "tuned" to pick up gold — by having a small scrap of gold fastened to its tip.

You know wart I already accepted defeat why you would want to bring it up in the first place after it was talked about BEFORE, especially on a U.F.O. thread is beyond me except to discredit that thread.We're discussing it in this thread now. I've not posted on word about dowsing on the "UFO thread" since I found out this thread existed.

And whilst you claim to "accept defeat" you don't have the honesty to simply admit that you can't dowse under fair test conditions that you agreed to "100%"

I get it now 4000 plus readers how does that make you feel?
Jealous?Nah, makes me feel great!

You're kind of forgetting the fact that all those 4000 views expose readers to our skewering of your lies. I hope we get even more views! :)

Look I will take the test for the 2100th time if it doesn't interfere with my plans and to show you that those plans are real I will e-mail you from my destination.Ah, but the question is,

"Will you take the test at JREF under conditions agreed upon by Randi and yourself?"

And don't think we don't notice you qualifying your acceptance to take a fair test with weasel words like "If it doesn't interfere with my plans". bleh. We know you're just saying that to give yourself an "out" from actually taking the test with Randi again. :rolleyes:


Not you or this or Randi will stop my destiny to mine again.
Only one person knows why I took the test and what my reasons were and he’s not talking I knew before I left that it may be tuff, it’s not tuff in the field.Nonsense. Another conspiracy theory I suppose? You took the test and failed for mysterious reasons only known to one man? Another excuse heard.

If I move from Florida to California then the test should be done there in the field.
If it is not then I will document what I do and show it to the world.I'm sure you and Randi could work something out.

JREF has members living in California who I'm sure would be willing to supervise a fair test with terms agreed upon by you and Randi.

Saying you'll "Self-test" is just an another smokescreen attempt to hide from taking the test fairly again.

We see right through these evasions edge.

Do you think that I will drop every thing to come back to Florida? You must be insane. You must be insane and obsessed with something about my U.F.O. thread.Hm, well, as I stated above, I'm sure you could take the test nearly anywhere you live with proper consent of Randi and the JREF.

But we know this is just another excuse. Ho Hum.


Is my talking about it bothering you?Nope.


Not You or Jref will not win in the field. Sure, let Randi setup a new test that is acceptable to both of you. Doesn't matter a darn bit if it's in a field. Under fair test conditions, you'll fail again.


I find it, and then I tell you that there is no more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a few specks or a pocket full of nuggets TWO WAYS OF CHECKING MY READINGS IF I FAIL AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO WAYS I LOOSE.Hm, stretching out the test to two days and imposing your unilateral conditions seems like another BS way to avoid taking the test. Excuses excuses....

IF I GO TO Lauderdale I will do it outside and then I will win.*noticing the big "IF" here as Edge tries to wriggle his way out of a fair re-test*

Million dollars doesn’t mean **** to me if I am on my way to mine and live there.Irrelevant to the question of whether you can sucessfully dowse under fair test conditions agreed to by yourself.

In my hometown in Calli, I could hit a million in the creek.Who cares? Let's just see you take a fair re-test with randi and prove that you're not lying to us and *sadly* yourself about your dowsing "powers"....

---------Lots of random anectdotal nonsense snipped.


You asked what happened remember? I didn't just start spouting off excuses, we weren't even discussing dowsing, When I gave you information on how I look at it, then you charged me with excuses.A pretty good sampling of your excuses are in my last post for the world to see.


I wont know geologists wont know and Randi and Jref wont know it’s the fairest way of testing, how simple can it be?So you're claiming that Randi and the JREF will never know enough about dowsing to fairly test you?

dingdingdingding! We got another excuse here folks!

Book knowledge is good for basics but you need an EDGE.Implying what? Unless you buy into the "reality" of dowsing you can't fairly test it? Double bleh.

...the other categories that they fall into are E.Ts., angels, fallen angels, time travelers, ... like dowsing there are many loop holes that I don’t even know about and am learning every day but unlike you all I have done it, and seen it, and witnessed it....
So you're now telling us that you have a firm belief in E.T.'s, Angels, Fallen Angels, and Time Travellers in addition to dowsing? Is there anything you won't believe edge? :)

THEN YOU WILL REALLY NEVER to a certain extent KNOW FOR SURE.I'm sorry edge, but we can't just take your word on this. Prove it to us. Pass a fair dowsing re-test with Randi and we'll extend you some credibility. Right now you pretty much have none.

I’M JUST A LITTLE FATHER ALONG. Suuuure you are.

Those all caps sentences really convince! Taking lessons from Bigfig?

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Flatworm said,"The problem is that one of those ways (i.e. digging up the site and trying to find if there's still gold) is not paranormal or even remarkable in any way. Why do you insist on tying the two methods together? Why won't you let us test your dowsing ability on its own?"

You guys still don't get it?
I dowse for a spot then as I go I dowse again till I'm sure that I have it all when it's gone,"in My mind", You check it, and it will be, according to me gone.
There are more places to look natural traps,If you think it's there and I say it's not you can check it that way also,three ways of checking acually. There are more traps that are not holding then there are holding.....

It's not that hard to do,a whole series of different test could be done in one or two days.
If you really want to learn all about it this is where it counts unknown quantites and unknown places.
Wart If I have x- ray vision then it's not fair, I do not know what's under the ground nor does James or jref or any other minner.

I did an experiment with a metal detector in side a building and it does the same thing false readings all over the place I used an under water version! Do you know why?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Edge

You guys still don't get it?
I dowse for a spot then as I go I dowse again till I'm sure that I have it all when it's gone,"in My mind", You check it, and it will be, according to me gone.
There are more places to look natural traps,If you think it's there and I say it's not you can check it that way also,three ways of checking acually. There are more traps that are not holding then there are holding.....


I think you're the one who's 'not getting it'. What's stopping you from checking these 'natural traps' yourself as you mine? It would seem foolish for you not to, since you are after all supposed to be looking for gold.


How are we supposed to separate the information you get from mining from the information you get from dowsing?



I did an experiment with a metal detector in side a building and it does the same thing false readings all over the place I used an under water version! Do you know why?

Irrelevant, because you agreed beforehand the test was fair and scored 100% accuracy on the open test. Did you lie when you agreed the test was fair?

[De_Bunk]

Edge...

Randi does not set out to prove you are lying...

The tests are designed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the apllicants claimed skill...

Setting up an unfair playing field...and then winning is only deceiving yourself...

How would you feel if you went to Randi...took the challenge ...and passed..

Your name would be known everywhere..

Plus you would be a million dollars richer...

The way you want to do it...gets you nothing...

Id say wait till you can re-test with Randi...

Try and hone these skills you say you have...

Theres a million dollars at stake...and it doesnt cost you a cent to try...

If Randi lost the million to a Dowsing claim..from that minute on ...i'd believe in it totally and sing its praises...

[Tricky]

Edge, you have already shown us that your dowsing skills cannot differentiate between gold, aluminum, gold colored ink, manganese, electrical fields, or quartz (and the energy therein). Are there any other things that will give you a false reading? How can you differentiate them in the field if you can't differentiate them in the office?

The quartz one is particularly interesting. What do you suppose is the most common mineral in the crust of the earth? Why it's quartz, of course, which you would know if you had even a beginner's knowledge of geology. All of those rocks you're finding gold in are just lousy with quartz. It is not distributed evenly, so you can't make any "it's just background noise" excuse.

So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "douse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

I truly would like a response to this, explaining why this would or would not be a fair test of your abilities. It would appear to the casual observer that you are afraid to take a fair test because you know, deep down inside, that it doesn't work.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge

Wart If I have x- ray vision then it's not fair, I do not know what's under the ground nor does James or jref or any other minner.
Irrelevant. You couldn't see what what was in the JREF mugs during the test either and you failed miserably to find targets that you claimed you had "100% accuracy" in locating via dowsing. I never said you needed "x-ray vision.

You just need to be able to use your self professed ability to dowse.

You failed once and now all we get from you are excuses and evasions. It's pretty evident that you're afraid to work with Randi and take a proper re-test under conditions agreeable to JREF and yourself.

You claim one minute that the test is fair, then you obfuscate the manner by saying "but not in an office!".

You can't have it both ways. The test was fair or it wasn't.

But of course you agreed to be tested in an office, so it seems pretty silly for you to use it as an excuse after the fact.

You could have easily have told Randi that "electrical waves" from his copier were sabotaging your dowsing skills.

I'm sure he would have gladly taken the test outside or somewhere more amenable to you.

You agreed to the test conditions "100%" and you failed.

As anyone can see right here.
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[Edge]

Tricky said,
So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "dowse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

Well yea I said if I go to Lauderdale I would do that, outside in a park. Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does. My other miner friend Carl S. sent those quartz rocks and he said that he could only find them in two places in the county; they are not like other quartz, as far as I know. I’ll have to check that.

Hey De-bunk my favorite loony skeptic.

De-bunk yes we would have to talk, James and I will have to talk, there’s time but it might run out that’s why I’m thinking if he has time and I’m gone he could come up there, but that hasn’t even been talked about yet between us.
It all would depend on if he wanted to make a little more out of it like a vacation.
He does talk to the guy that taught me “Tim P.,” to dowse and that would be a good meeting of minds along with some hunting and fishing and of course some mining, that’s if he’s even interested.
If you go to the field it will shock you if you are not lucky, how long it will take you to hit gold mining with book knowledge. Oh you’ll get a little bit but it will cost you to run that way.

Wart damn you are just obnoxious, You keep twisting my words Look I failed so from my perspective not yours I have to figure out what went wrong that’s the facts, from my perspective It works from yours it doesn’t so then it’s up to me to figure out, not you. They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.
Again I practiced in two places down here and got worst results and better results than at James office his results were in-between the other results.

I told you about doing it with a metal detector, under water type, and I got some interesting results with that, it tells me that even a machine that’s suppose to find metals such as gold or iron is fooled too.
Simply because of the pig wire and rebar in a concert slab, in one place it will work and another you can’t tell the difference you will get similar results as dowsing for gold inside.
Yes those experiments are relevant to me.

Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that.
Damn easy to understand isn’t it.
Never the less as soon as you put the gold in the end of the stick water is not detected that has to mean something.
Take the gold out and all you will detect is water.
In the field you will find Iron lead gold and a few other things that are hevey enough to get trapped with gold the reason why I used different things for that most possible closeness to what happens in the field. And a couple of new things to give me an advantage.

I didn’t go all that way to not try, I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell you but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!

Flatworm said, I think you're the one who's 'not getting it'. What's stopping you from checking these 'natural traps' yourself as you mine? It would seem foolish for you not to, since you are after all supposed to be looking for gold.
Well yea I dowse those spots as I go but when you look at the ground you can tell if it’s been touched or not if it’s not showing to hold I pass it by. There’s a line of gold or really several that you can follow up the creek and as you go some are holding some are not.
I have gone back to check and it’s always true that it’s not worth digging or dredging.
Especially when you’re hitting ounces every day and if you move off the line that’s producing it’s a waste of time and energy.
You don’t take the whole river or creek out?

I don’t know where in Canada you live but go do some mining and you’ll understand the daunting task of hitting the jackpot.
Of course read the books first I did that, it’s the information you need for common sense and try it it’s fun and the best job I ever had.

It wasn’t a hobby for me it was how I made a living and not to many can say that.
:p

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does. It doesn't matter a damn bit what you "know".

We have lots of evidence that you can't dowse and absolutely no evidence that you can.

Your failure is here for all to see.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

De-bunk yes we would have to talk, James and I will have to talk, there’s time but it might run out that’s why I’m thinking if he has time and I’m gone he could come up there, but that hasn’t even been talked about yet between us.Hm. Imposing a time limit again? What a convenient way of avoiding a second fair re-test with Randi and JREF's input. We've heard this excuse before.


He does talk to the guy that taught me “Tim P.,” to dowse and that would be a good meeting of minds along with some hunting and fishing and of course some mining, that’s if he’s even interested.So if your friend "Tim P." is such a fine dowser, why doesn't he prove a point and take Randi's million? Perhaps he's self deluded about his "powers" also?


Wart damn you are just obnoxious, No, obnoxious is you lying and evading honest questions about your abject failure to prove your abilities under fair test conditions accepted 100% by yourself.

You keep twisting my wordsNope, I presented a list of your lame excuses verbatim.

Look I failed so from my perspective not yours I have to figure out what went wrong that’s the facts, from my perspective It works from yours it doesn’t so then it’s up to me to figure out, not you. You failed period.
And I can even tell you why.

You have no dowsing powers. They're an illusion, a self delusion on your part.

Wanna shut me up? Set up another fair re-test with Randi. And advance past the preliminary stage.

None of this crap about "self testing" your skills means a thing.


They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.Bleh. I printed a huge list of these excuses and you still deny them? It wasn't only "being inside" that you used as an excuse.

It was nonsense like "the gold ink in the encylopedias distracted my stick" or "There's something behind that wall that randi knows about".

These aren't excuses? Then I guess dowsing isn't the only thing you self delude yourself about. pffffffffffffffffft.

Again I practiced in two places down here and got worst results and better results than at James office his results were in-between the other results.At his place, you got exactly one correct in the actual test. If that's "in between" you must have struck out completely in one of your "self tests"

Yes those experiments are relevant to me.But completely irrelevant to us.

Pass the challenge, then we'll listen to you.

Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that. Ahhh, so now you change your story. Now we know it was the evil copy machine that sabotaged you correct? Another lame excuse you can't stop repeating :rolleyes:

I notice that whatever was behind the wall sure didn't stop you from passing your "open test" with 100% accuracy. In fact, take a look at this quote regarding the open test

(4) The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former. So you're going to deny this was the case? I'm just dying to hear you say that Randi misquoted or misunderstood you because of how old he is. But wait, we've already heard that excuse haven't we?

Damn easy to understand isn’t it.Quite easy to understand you'd rather evade and make increasingly lame excuses rather than face defeat a second time in a fair challenge with Randi.

Once again, you claim you knew before the test that it would be "difficult". So why not change the terms of the test when you could? Why did you go through with it if you felt the test wasn't fair? And why won't you give us a simple yes/no answer to this question.

"was the test fair or wasn't it?"

And not trying to have it both ways with junk statements like "Well, it was fair, but also unfair because it was inside."

I didn’t go all that way to not try,Sure, and Randi would have let you adjust the conditions when you got there if you had requested.

Don't try to blame your failure on cirumstances beyond your control. You weren't a victim. Randi bent over backwards to make a fair test for you and even as late as the actual test, I know he would have made any adjustments you felt were needed as long as it didn't affect the fairness of the test.

I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell youAnother convenient lie probably. But since you "won't tell" then I guess it's irrelevant eh?

but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!Do you actually believe you're required to go to lauderdale to take the test? Randi has JREF'ers all over the U.S. that can do the prelim re-test on you. All this nonsense about "not having the time" or "not being able to travel to lauderdale" are transparent excuses again.


Tricky asked you a very valid question

So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "douse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

I'd be very curious what you think of his suggestion.

[Tricky]

Wert has already addressed most of these points, so I'l keep it relatively short.
Originally posted by Edge
Tricky said,
So why will you not accept the easiest method which I proposed?
1) Find an area where you "dowse" there is no gold.
2) Repeat the same test you took before.

Well yea I said if I go to Lauderdale I would do that, outside in a park. Deep down inside Tricky I know that it works when nothing else does.
So are you saying then that you accept this methodology? Good that's a first step.

Originally posted by Edge
My other miner friend Carl S. sent those quartz rocks and he said that he could only find them in two places in the county; they are not like other quartz, as far as I know. I’ll have to check that.

The "energy" you are describing is piezoelectricity, defined as
pi.e.zo.elec.tric.i.ty
: electricity or electric polarity due to pressure especially in a crystalline substance (as quartz)[/quartz]
It exists in every crystal of quartz. It is the thing that makes quartz watches so accurate. It is nothing paranormal.
Originally posted by Edge

If you go to the field it will shock you if you are not lucky, how long it will take you to hit gold mining with book knowledge. Oh you’ll get a little bit but it will cost you to run that way.
I would bet on a metamorphic geologist to beat you every time in the field. I am a sedimentary geologist and I confess I don't know enough about mining to find gold. But I must say that your lack of wealth makes it pretty obvious that it takes you quite a long time to find gold too.

Originally posted by Edge
They are not excuses but me trying to put some logical explanation to the reasons why indoors it seems difficult.
They are excuses. Just because you believe them makes them no less excuses. An honorable man would admit that.




Originally posted by Edge
Let me clarify one more thing when I asked about the books they were in line of what was causing the reaction when I asked he said what I needed to know, then I had to look past the wall, the other side, for me that explained that.
Damn easy to understand isn’t it.
No, a damned obvious excuse, but I'm quite sure it "explained" it to you because you have no powers of critical thought. Why would the books be in the way if the wall itself was not in the way? Why would it even matter, since they were not "in the way" of the target. What's the range on your dowsing skills, by the way?

Originally posted by Edge
I told you about doing it with a metal detector, under water type, and I got some interesting results with that, it tells me that even a machine that’s suppose to find metals such as gold or iron is fooled too.

I tell you what? Why don't you give some third party some of your gold and let them hide it on the beach, then go head-to-head with a person with a metal detector? Winner keeps the gold.




Originally posted by Edge
I didn’t go all that way to not try, I found out something else but you will say it’s an excuse so I won’t tell you but it will be a great advantage to me so it’s a secret in case I go to Lauderdale again. I might but not till I talk to the Jref team dig it I knew that you could!
Ah! A secret weapon. Well bring it on, Mike. I'm confident it won't change the results.
Originally posted by Edge

It wasn’t a hobby for me it was how I made a living and not to many can say that.
Why did you stop using it as your primary source of income?

[Edge]

One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

The road is kind of in the middle of the valley.
We figured any cracks that go from east to west would be good traps if they lie under the road and that they would be prehistoric traps with lots of gold in them never touched or mined.
Guess what?
There is a lot there, as we traveled down the road Carl and I dowsed together and the attraction was the same for both of us and the sticks would pick up a major load, as we approached then it would stay locked on it and keep pointing and rotating till another load was picked up, the result was a spinning action as we passed at a certain speed.

You had to hold it with out gripping to allow it to do this.
The ends were touching into the palms of the hands, I know with that kind of contact you aren't going to grip and there is no way for any muscle under the skin to work against that kind of leverage try it at home see if you can do it purposely?

Don't forget to put a peice of counter weight in the end, 2 or 3 grams, and try to hold it out parrellel to the ground, ends of the sitck in the palms of your hands.

I will document this experiment on film when I get there.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

-----------repeated nonsense snipped.


Don't forget to put a peice of counter weight in the end, 2 or 3 grams, and try to hold it out parrellel to the ground, ends of the sitck in the palms of your hands.

I will document this experiment on film when I get there. Um, edge.

You already posted this nonsense nearly verbatim in this thread.

Your "self tests" mean less than nothing to us.

Pass the prelim test stage with JREF and we'll listen to you. All this other talk of "well I can document that it works when I'm alone" crap just doesn't wash.


It's a rambling bit that in no way answers for your failure to pass a fair test that you agreed 100% with and helped set up yourself.

Nor does anything in this post address your evasions and lies concerning re-taking the test with JREF.

bleh.

Everyone can see that your lame excuses to Randi and us only point out how self delusional you are....

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

I wonder if dowsing works.

Nope.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
One day I decided to check under the road which runs north and south through town it parallels the river for about five miles, the river has meandered back and forth from east to west crossing the road and depositing gold along it's path ways for thousands of years, It now flows along the east side of that valley.

So you are looking for placer deposits? Before you seemed to be describing looking for lode gold. Do you know the difference?

Originally posted by Edge
Guess what?
There is a lot there...

How much? You may use ounces or dollars-worth. Don't worry, since you haven't told us a location, we won't go steal it. BTW. Did you have mineral rights to the places you were looking, or were you stealing it from the people who owned the land?

Originally posted by Edge
You had to hold it with out gripping to allow it to do this.
The ends were touching into the palms of the hands, I know with that kind of contact you aren't going to grip and there is no way for any muscle under the skin to work against that kind of leverage try it at home see if you can do it purposely?
Interesting. Earlier you told us how the attraction nearly ripped the rod from your hands. So the effect is different in different places? What causes the difference? How do you know which technique to use?

Originally posted by Edge
I will document this experiment on film when I get there.
I look forward to it. Especially the part where you unearth huge amounts of gold.

[Flatworm]

Well yea I dowse those spots as I go but when you look at the ground you can tell if it’s been touched or not if it’s not showing to hold I pass it by. There’s a line of gold or really several that you can follow up the creek and as you go some are holding some are not.
I have gone back to check and it’s always true that it’s not worth digging or dredging.
Especially when you’re hitting ounces every day and if you move off the line that’s producing it’s a waste of time and energy.
You don’t take the whole river or creek out?


This doesn't address how we're supposed to separate the information you gain from dowsing from the information you gain from mining.


Tricky's proposal is a good one. You go over an area and certify that your dowsing finds no gold there. We then repeat the experiment you did at the JREF.

[Crossbow]

To: Edge

Let me try to make this simple as possible.

If you can dowse gold,

Then go dowse some gold!

You would be able to make millions of dollars and not have to worry about Randi, JREF, or anyone else in the Forum.

Good luck!

[wert]

*hearing the sound of crickets*

[Edge]

This doesn't address how we're supposed to separate the information you gain from dowsing from the information you gain from mining.

Even in the field there are blank spots many blank spots the test should be done there where gold is dowsed for.

Many ways of checking.

Wart said,"*hearing the sound of crickets*"

No body likes annoying idiots who constantly spam there veiws we know your veiws if you do not what to hear what mine are don't ask.

How skeptics think,
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

<> Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.

<> Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only those presentations whose time constraints and a-priori bias preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.

<> At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

<> State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

<> Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.

<> Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

<> "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.

<> Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.

<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

In the field you will lose.



Crossbow To: Edge

Let me try to make this simple as possible.

If you can dowse gold,

Then go dowse some gold!
Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Edge


...

Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

Good for You!

By the way, if you gold dowsing power is real, why are you not already rich?

If I could dowse gold, I would not care about JREF, Randi, skeptics, or any of the naysayers. I would just go out, find the gold, cash in, and live the life of Hugh Hefner until the day I die.

Best of luck to you in finding that gold!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
No body likes annoying idiots who constantly spam there veiws we know your veiws if you do not what to hear what mine are don't ask.
Well, Edge, you constantly spam your views here. Are we unjustified in asking you to prove them? My view is that dowsing does not work and those who believe this have shown it to be true time and time again in controlled tests, as you know from personal experience.

BTW. It is obvious you wrote the last bit because it is full of misspellings and grammatical errors. It is equally obvious that you did not write the next bits because they are as perfectly grammatical as they are perfectly dishonest. Remember, if you quote somebody, you're supposed to give the reference.

Plagerized by Edge
How skeptics think,
<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.
A flat out lie. Skeptics ask that claims be proven. You seem to think that science should be "whatever sounds right". And I challenge you to provide one example where skeptics tried to "fudge, stretch or violate" the scientific method. I can give you numerous examples where dowser do.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
Another lie. Here are ten cups with gold under one. Find it. You provide that evidence, and we will believe you. Your "stories" of how you have found gold are not evidence as any real scientist knows. All we ask is that you find the hidden gold. How abstract and theoretical is that? Not nearly as abstract and theoretical as claiming interference of electrical fields, aluminum, gold paint and the like. You can't even prove your power exists, yet you give excuses why it doesn't work.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")
No subject starts out being "inherently unscientific". But if it fails test after test, then it is relegated to the scrap heap. This is how it should be. The rest of this paragraph is just gibberish.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
LOL. That is such a laugh, when pseudoscience likes to get "celeberties" to endorse their useless products. What corresponding member of the scientific community carries such "prestige". I'll bet you can only name one well-know living scientist off the top of your head (Stephen Hawking) and I do not have any examples of where he has pooh-poohed pseudoscience. Do you?


Plagerized by Edge
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
And what else would you call unproven assertions? Facts? Well, you probably would. You have already shown that you will believe anything.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)
Look at yourself, Edge. The ecclesiastical authority is you! You are refusing to look at the evidence, but insist that since it doesn't fit your world view, then it must be wrong. It is people like you that impede the progress of science, not advance it.

Plagerized by Edge
<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."
Whoever wrote this is a bald-faced liar. He is taking everything that pseudoscientists do and trying to imply that skeptics do it. How juvenile. BTW. Where is the "watertight body of evidence" that supports dowsing?

Plagerized by Edge

<> Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.
Got a hot flash for you, genius. The skeptical componant is in fact essential to all science. If you went on intuition, we'd still think the earth was flat. So what this guy is saying is that science should abandon the scientific method and simply accept someones "intuition" or "inspiration".

Plagerized by Edge
<> Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.
Duh. The only way to explaing anything is in terms of the known. You can admit that you don't know, meaning you can't explain it, but to try to explain it with an unproven or unprovable fairy tale... well, that's why the Biblical Creation story came about.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.
Absolute ********. Nobody disagrees among themselves more than scientists, and I can give you numerous examples. It is pseudoscientists that tend to accept anything another pseudoscientist says. How many dowsers have you known that you think are fakes?

Plagerized by Edge
<> Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only those presentations whose time constraints and a-priori bias preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.
ROTFL! The media LOVES pseudoscience. Why do you think the X-Files did so well. John Edward? Sylvia Browne. These media hogs get lots of attention, but ask one to appear on a panel where they have to debate their "skills" and you will see them running faster than a jackrabbit with it's tail on fire. Just like Edge is running from a fair test.

Plagerized by Edge
<> At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.
Another great lie. Science has proven time and time again that the world is not as we perceive it. Irrational evidence is perfectly admissible provided it is evidence and not anecdotes.

Plagerized by Edge
<> State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.
Absolute balderdash. Skeptics don't dismiss anything unconventional. We test it. Lying paranormalists refuse to be tested. Here's an example. My wife said that if you put a spoon in the neck of an opened bottle of champagne, it will retain it's fizz. I said that didn't sound logical, but I would test. We opened two bottles of identical champagne and put a spoon in on of the bottles. After several hours, we had a friend serve her tastes at random from each bottle and ask her which bottle it came from. She was right 4 times out of ten. (we couldn't do a longer test or I would have had to pour her into bed ;))

Plagerized by Edge
<> Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.
What is it about debunking that you observe is uncritical belief? Please be specific.

Plagerized by Edge
<> Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."
So now you are saying that scientists should not look for flaws in experimental design? Besides, what we really ask is that "unconventional phenomena" experiments be repeatable by independant investigators. Why do you have a problem with this?


Plagerized by Edge
<> "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.
Another egregious lie. Scientists use Occam's Razor as a guideline to see what would be the most likely courses to investigate. If that turns up a dead end, then we go to more unlikely scenarios and test those. No scientist says OR is an immutable law. Whoever made this assertion betrays their incredible stupidity about science.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.
Science doesn't discourage history or philosophy at all. It is simply not a part of science. Go and make your comparisons and philosophize to your heart's content, but if you make a scientific claim, then these diciplines have no place.


Plagerized by Edge
<> Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"
In it's purest form, science does not even accept the concept of "proof". A theory is either strongly supported by evidence or weakly supported. Only things like mathmatics have real "proof". But if there is no evidence, then that should be noted, right?


Written by Edge (contains misspellings)
Definitly my plans I am going to mine next year in Gods country, my home.

This is something that has always confused me. Since theists claim God made everything, isn't it all God's country. Which parts has he sold off?
And I predict you will be no more wealthy after mining than you are now. Possibly less. If dowsing worked, you'd be rich.

[roger]

Originally posted by Tricky
BTW. It is obvious you wrote the last bit because it is full of misspellings and grammatical errors. It is equally obvious that you did not write the next bits because they are as perfectly grammatical as they are perfectly dishonest. Remember, if you quote somebody, you're supposed to give the reference.

Source of Edge's post: http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

It's quoted many places on the web, according to a quick google search, so he may have used a different link. Nonetheless, the text is copyrighted by the author, and he explicitly states "May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author".

Good catch, Tricky!

Roger

[Crossbow]

:)

Thanks Tricky!

:)

I was wondering who wrote that bit for him since I was sure it was not him due to the lack of spelling and grammer errors.

Originially, I had thought a friend of his had ghost-wrote for him, but it turns out he just copied it from someone else and did not give them credit.

My oh My! What a wanker he is!

He cannot dowse and he cannot give credit where credit is due.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by roger


Source of Edge's post: http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

It's quoted many places on the web, according to a quick google search, so he may have used a different link. Nonetheless, the text is copyrighted by the author, and he explicitly states "May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author".

Good catch, Tricky!

Roger
So will this post of Edge's now be censored?

btw, that whole article was one huge straw man, with a bit of false analogy thrown in. A lot of the actions quoted are actually those adopted by believers, not skeptics. Eg: "Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness."

And, for good measure, Occam's Razor is misquoted. Occam's Razor does not say that anything is the correct explanation. It simply says you do not need to invent ad hoc hypotheses to explain something that has already been explained using natural explanations.


(Edited to add quote)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Crossbow
:)

Thanks Tricky!

:)

I was wondering who wrote that bit for him since I was sure it was not him due to the lack of spelling and grammer errors.

Originially, I had thought a friend of his had ghost-wrote for him, but it turns out he just copied it from someone else and did not give them credit.

My oh My! What a wanker he is!

He cannot dowse and he cannot give credit where credit is due.
Perhaps he dowsed the article. :D

[Edge]

You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.

It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.

If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, with my spots to test in preferably in the great outdoors in a neutral spot if James is still available.

Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Don't forget to spam again.

If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.

As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.

Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.
But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, but they are just as fun if you don’t like to make money Du hu.

In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.

You guys don’t know **** about mining.

I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Edge

If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.


Because of the tension in the dowsing stick, your involuntary movements and your pulse cause movements in the stick. You have no control over this because your nerves and muscles act before you become aware of the motion. The dowsing stick merely amplifies your involuntary movements. If you really can dowse, you shouldn't need a stick at all.

A clean room? Please define. Clean of what? If there was a problem with the room you should have objected at that time. At this point it seems you're just making excuses. Others have explained that to you, and I'm sure you wouldn't accept similar excuses from us.


In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.

You guys don’t know **** about mining.


Assuming you don't "salt" the field location first...tell you what, you can use my back yard. Half-acre of flat, heavy soil, high clay content, some rocks. There's a car buried back there. Bring your stick and find it. You'll have to tune for "Chevy".

True. I don't know jack about mining, but I don't have to know about mining to know that dowsing is ********. Mining blind? Would that be random digging (the term "digging" is intended to include picking, blasting, scooping, shoveling, ramming, rodding, chopping, chiseling, splitting, gouging, core sampling, etc.)?


I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?

What's bedrock have to do with it? Never be proved? Any state geological survey office would have that information. All you have to do is to drill and measure. If you've seen enough of the countryside roadcuts you can probably make a reasonable guess as to bedrock depth.

[Edge]

I never object to the past but learn from it.
Now for the future, I can make that better at least for myself can't I?
I'm not the one squirming I have nothing to lose and every thing to gain.

Until you try, you won’t know the truth.

Try it, learn it, then come back and tell us what you think.
No one has even attempted it here yet why is that?
So thoroughly convinced are you, swim against the current, and beliefs.

[Edge]

Salt the creek why?
I'll leave the same time the Jref crew leaves and they can even keep an eye on me.
Why in the world would I try to perpetuate a false hood if I had to salt the creek? I would fail and what’s the point.
You do the same thing when you run a test in an office, you salt the ground and besides a geologist would be able to tell untouched or virgin ground.
Even if when we got there if some one else worked the ground in spots that would be a good test to see if they got it all.

But there still is ground in the area that has not been touched or tampered with, that could be checked.
In the field I’ll win…..I have when ever I mine.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
I'm not worried about anything. You, on the other hand, seem very defensive for some reason.

[The Fool]

Edge...
So, "in the field" could you find nuggets under coffee cups? If not, what is the properties of a coffee cup that cancel your "powers"? could you find which of 10 coffee cups has a 1oz nugget under it?

I'll tell you this....If you watched where it was put your dowsing thingimajig would detect it every time.....remember, you are like all dowsers and cannot resist showing off in the open test. Then when the test was done without you seeing where the nugget goes, suddenly, your powers would vanish.

Failing the Jreff challenge was probably not much fun. But at least you tried...... you really don't expect people to follow you 500 miles into the wilderness to see you fail again?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?

Perhaps you do have permission, Edge, although like everything else you claim, you expect us to take you at your word, and you are a proven liar. I am not worried at all, I just point out to others how intellectually dishonest you are to post things without attribution. When you make no comment otherwise, you are saying "I wrote this". Of course, no one believed that, but it is still dishonest of you.


Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.
I'll need a specialist in primative languages to figure out that first sentence. But I object to being called a liar. I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied. I can find several for you, a couple being:

In Randi's office, you agreed the the conditions were acceptible, now you say they were not. You were lying then or you are lying now.

You have admitted that you used your knowledge of where the gold was to pass the "open" test, rather than your dowsing skills. You lied when you said otherwise.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.


It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.
Again? I don't recall you ever giving a detailed description of your test. What I have noticed is that you consistantly refuse to comment on my suggestion:

1) Find a place where you agree there is no gold
2) Repeat the office test.

I would love to hear you explain what you find unscientific about that, but I predict you will ignore it in your usual cowardly fashion.


If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, with my spots to test in preferably in the great outdoors in a neutral spot if James is still available.
You really need to do something about your black-outs, Edge. Surely you remember that the rules have to be agreed upon by both parties. You haven't ever give a clear description of what exactly you plan to do. I suspect you can't.


Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Don't forget to spam again.
I was merely noting that your writing style is so... uh... distinctive, that your attempt to pass someone else's writing off as your own was pitiful. Are you sure you want to be an author? BTW. What evidence?


If you took the time to examine what the dowsing stick does you would know that it is not muscle action. There is an arc or a curve in the stick when the strongest of you muscles can’t stop it from continuing.
The reason why, is the torque that's developed when you try to stop it.
Odd, because you described one episode where you dowsed with a fellow who balances the rod on his hands. A force that strong should have pulled the dowsing rod right out of his hands and impaled it in the ground. I ask again. Do you know any dowsers that you think are fakes?

There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least.

Then why didn't you say something? Oh, that's right. You did. You had him move an aluminum cup. Your lies are getting more desperate, Edge.


As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.
Six figures is squat, Edge. That's two or three years salary for the average American. Your home is probably worth that much. Yeah, we know what you hope to hit, but funny that big payday always seems just over the horizon.


Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.
But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, but they are just as fun if you don’t like to make money Du hu.
Then tell me why big mining companies don't use dowsers. They could save a fortune in geologists' salaries. But as long as you recognize that you are only doing it for fun, then it's okay. Don't be like the person who says "I only play for fun," then blows his rent money on lottery tickets.


In the field Jref will lose.
Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Especially when I hit color every time I use it and when I don’t it’s like mining blind.
Time and time again you claim that JREF will lose in the field, but you are too cowardly to take a fair test. State your experimental design, or admit that you don't have one.


You guys don’t know **** about mining.
LOL. You may have been around "gold miners" and learned some of their methods, but you have proven many times that you don't know a thing about geology. You probably think the three kinds of rocks are ingenious, metaphoric and sedentary. Mining companies hire geologists, not dowsers. Can you possibly conceive why?


I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s not to say there isn’t something to it but lets consider what’s under the ground here that can never be proved, where’s the bedrock how deep?
What could be more scientific? Find a place with no false readings and then let someone hide some gold. Science doesn't have to be difficult, Edge. Perhaps you would discover that if you ever studied it.

Oh yeah. You never answered this question. What is the range of your dowsing ability? If you can really pick up readings hundreds of feet deep, then the only way to "prove" you were correct in the field would be to excavate hundreds of feet below where you "dowsed" the gold was gone. Do you see why your "test" is unworkable?

[CWL]

Dowsers... gotta love 'em... NOT. :mad:

For those of you that have missed it here's another little thread (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8307) on the subject.

[Crossbow]

I think I have finally figured out why Edge would want the test to be done in an outdoor enviroment.

First, it would allow him, or an aide, to salt the area well in advance, then Edge could come in find the some, or all, of the planted gold and claim sucess. Further, since it is an undefined area, there would be no way to determine how much gold actually was there, therefore all that he would have to do is find a few pieces to claim sucess.

Second, even if he did not find any gold, he could just claim that it was buried further than could be recovered. Hence, there would be no way to validate his claims.

By the way, one of the things I have noted about dowsers, is that there power only works when they are directly above the target and that they are unable to triangulate the location of the target. I would think that if the power was real, they would be able to do so.

As for my opinion, I think that Edge is at best dishonest, greedy, and self-deluded.

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?
Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.Hey, this is cute.

You call others a "liar" but we're expected to put up with you you lying and evading honest questions about your abject failure to prove your abilities under fair test conditions accepted 100% by yourself.

And of course anyone can go right here and see the full extent of your failure and the start of your continuing lame excuses.

http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html


It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.And once again I'll tell you.

All your blathering about "self tests" where you would "unilaterally" set up the test conditions means absolutely nothing to us.

Take a fair re-test approved by Randi and JREF and we'll give you credibility. Until then, why bother making excuses?

If I go to the skeptic’s camp again it will be under my terms totally, Hey genius. You agreed with the terms in the first test. You helped set them up with Randi. Randi won't even perfrom the prelim test unless the claimant agrees to the test conditions. You agreed to the test conditions and now are trying to wriggle out and imply that somehow the test conditions *which you 100% agreed to * were someone unfair.

if James is still available.Once again, it's not required for Randi personally to test you again. It's just another excuse you've been using to escape another public failure. JREF has operatives all over the U.S. and I'm sure JREF would be flexible on this. Randi nearly bent over backward to give you a fair test before and all we ended up with from you were lame excuses and ad-hominen attacks on Randi being "old and forgetful".

Bleh.

Don't worry about my spelling, if you can't discredit the evidence discredit the witness, eh wart. Discredit you? Don't have to.

You discredited yourself right here. http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html



There is no way in the world that tiny muscles could do that and it needs to be looked at more scientifically than what happens at Jref I was expecting a clean room at the very least. Hey, let's see you prove it in a fair second test with JREF eh?

As far as what I'm worth finically that's not your business,
But I will say it's in the six figure numbers and I hope to hit another sixty-ounce pocket when I go back, do the math you yoyos.Proof? If you're so wealthy, why did you bitch about the "long trip" to take the JREF test? A fella with that kind of bling could easily afford a plane trip wouldn't you think?


Maybe I’ll hit more but there are a lot of days that are less, but they are just as fun.Hey, fun or not, how about acctually demonstrating some of that dowsing "talent" in a fair JREF test?


But I always hit every time that I dowse and it can also be proven that when you do not dowse your chances at it are a lot less maybe one spot out of thirty, Sure, you're always successful except under fair test conditions that you helped to set up yourself and agreed to 100%


In the field Jref will lose.Sure.

Why not take tricky's advice and dowse a field to make sure it's bereft of gold. Then follow the exact procedure you followed in the first test with a member of JREF there to keep you honest.

Let me get you there, I’ll take your million too. A false positive reading in an office doesn’t mean a thing to me when in the field there might be one or two incidences in a season. Once again conveniently forgetting the fact that you scored 100% in the "open" JREF test, and then turned around and score 1 out of ten in the real test.

I say lets do it under more scientific controls or in the field where it is used, it’s not used in Florida and there are false positive readings every where I go, it’s I'm pretty darn sure Randi and JREF would be willing to let you do the test in another state. Why not ask them? Otherwise, by saying you can't dowse in an office or in the whole state of florida(!) shows that you're becoming even more desparate for excuses to avoid a fair re-test by JREF.
:rolleyes:

[Edge]

How stupid!
Any one that knows any thing about mining in the creek would be able to tell if the gold which lies on the bottom was originally there instead of on the top were it would be if salted. Why would I throw what I mined back?

You will lose in the field, if you’re so sure why are you worried?
I could default the million one day and the next let them pick the spot on the creek with several chooses of where to go, hell I wouldn't even take any gold with me except what I use in the stick.
Like I said there is still virgin ground to go to, no problem there.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.
Talk about spelling errors!
Learn how to spell Pinocchio.

Ok here's one place of many, I’m sure people can see this just e-mail the guy and ask if I didn’t get permission.

Plagerized by Edge
¨ Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Oh let me give you his address,

¨ Plagiarized, the kettle calling the pot black! Another miss spelling.

Copy of the letter sent to Dan,

>Hi Daniel, May I have permission to use a couple of your paragraphs to fight the professional debunkers? It's a skeptic’s forum and they are blind.
What you have here is very good and it will make them angry and maybe think a little.
What you got here is good answers to their bull.

Mike
ddrasin@aol.com<

You are the liar ass wipe.

I have no reason to lie why would I?

He has you figured out as to the reason you are the way you are? Could be many.

Time and time again you claim that JREF will lose in the field, but you are too cowardly to take a fair test. State your experimental design, or admit that you don't have one.

They will lose in the field it might be in Florida or California, But it's defiant win win situation in California that would be my choice were gold is mined and my home..

You really need to do something about your black-outs, Edge. Surely you remember that the rules have to be agreed upon by both parties. You haven't ever give a clear description of what exactly you plan to do. I suspect you can't.

It’s given not give!

Another lie, I have gone over this many times its self-explanatory jess.
Any body with half a brain can figure out how to do the tests in the field that is up to them like I said I only want to prove that dowsing isn't what you think it is and I will forfeit the money if I'm in the field mining any way, but the second day will be different that should do, god almighty how much more do you want?

Jref can set up the parameters to the test any way they want out there, and don't tell me they can't go to the gold fields how ridicules is that? Who’s the idiot that said that?

Tricky said, quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Edge
You guys are such crybabies.
I posted those before and it's not plagiarism and I have permission to use it whenever I want; however I want.
Why would you care if I posted the link any way?
What the f*** are you worried about richard, Tricky ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Perhaps you do have permission, Edge, although like everything else you claim, you expect us to take you at your word, and you are a proven liar. I am not worried at all, I just point out to others how intellectually dishonest you are to post things without attribution. When you make no comment otherwise, you are saying "I wrote this". Of course, no one believed that, but it is still dishonest of you.

You guys seem to know where it came from.


quote: What i said,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh oh my question mark better check it out, R.O.F.L.M.A.O
So you are the liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here you try to make fun of my sentence, again discredit the witness approach!

I'll need a specialist in primative languages to figure out that first sentence. But I object to being called a liar. I challenge you to find a single instance where I have lied. I can find several for you, a couple being:

In Randi's office, you agreed the the conditions were acceptible, now you say they were not. You were lying then or you are lying now.

"No, but common sense would indicate a different place that's all.
Why lose again?"

You have admitted that you used your knowledge of where the gold was to pass the "open" test, rather than your dowsing skills. You lied when you said otherwise.

Okay, Pinnochio. Let's hear where I have lied.

Many miss spellings in that quote.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is the way most skeptics behave.
I say lets use all the scientific controls we can in the field there are several ways to check with almost no false positive readings.
I'm not going over this again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again? I don't recall you ever giving a detailed description of your test. What I have noticed is that you consistantly refuse to comment on my suggestion:

" Back up and read and remember."

1) Find a place where you agree there is no gold
2) Repeat the office test.

I would love to hear you explain what you find unscientific about that, but I predict you will ignore it in your usual cowardly fashion.



There's plenty of places in the gold fields were there is no gold and there's plenty of places that there is, take your choice, again there are more than two ways of testing at least three or four till your sure. Then you’ll lose that million, and make sure I'm not cheating ok if I do cheat I'm sure there will be a big write up about that, I’m sure of it.

There are boulders and over- burden to take the place of cups but we could try that too, all I'm saying if you really want to know the truth about it play on the creek with me and I'll show you.
Make sure that when you come out there that your very existence depends on the gold you pull up out of the ground, dredge next to me and see if you can support your self that will make a believer out of you when you can't run or eat you will then asked to be shown what I know, we could do a write up of a miner that doesn't know how to dowse that would be funny.

For the idiot that said why follow me into the field, James and the foundation are rich it would be easy to do, there are many creeks to check small amounts of gold and large amounts of gold what ever happens to be there. I have no control over what’s there but I can tell most of the time how much and size of the pieces.

It's located and recovered and then it's gone. If I can't get to it then no one can. At that point it could be assumed to be irretrievable and that spot is dead to them and myself. Common sense, is common sense, how easy can it be?


Oh by the way I only know one dowser other than my self, the guy that taught me.

Learn how to dowse then talk to me on here; any of you can do it, its so easy, not.
One of you skeptics should be able to do it, and then report back and I’ll give you more Ideas on how to stop the reaction.

Any body want instructions on how to do it?
You could actually help me Heehee.

[wert]

Originally posted by The Fool
Edge...
So, "in the field" could you find nuggets under coffee cups? If not, what is the properties of a coffee cup that cancel your "powers"? could you find which of 10 coffee cups has a 1oz nugget under it?

I'll tell you this....If you watched where it was put your dowsing thingimajig would detect it every time.....remember, you are like all dowsers and cannot resist showing off in the open test. Then when the test was done without you seeing where the nugget goes, suddenly, your powers would vanish.
Oh absolutely. Edge tends to conveninently forget facts like the following from his JREF test.

The performer has the opportunity of deciding for himself — in the "open" tests — whether it's his powers, or just his foreknowledge of the answer, that is actually at work. Mike was convinced of the former.

Point this out to him and he'll either ignore it or give you some lame excuse like "well Randi is old and forgetful" "Randi is misquoting me" :rolleyes:

[wert]

Originally posted by Edge


You are the liar ass wipe.Hey edge. Just a little FYI.

Even if you have permission to reproduce the text of a copyrighted article you still have to properly attribute its source.

Doing anything else implies that you wrote it. And that is simply wrong.

Luckily for us, it's pretty easy to tell when you have nothing to say and are merely posting "cut 'n paste" nonsense from the sites of others.

I have no reason to lie why would I?Um, you lied about whether you believed the initial test to be fair or not.

Your credibility is nonexistant.

They will lose in the field it might be in Florida or California, But it's defiant win win situation in California that would be my choice were gold is mined and my home..Sure, repeat this enough and maybe it'll be true eh?

I know that JREF has people in California. Why not have Randi and JREF set you up again in a fair test?

Trying to move the test to places you think are inaccessible to JREF is a simple minded and very obvious ploy to avoid the test.


Another lie, I have gone over this many times its self-explanatory jess.
Any body with half a brain can figure out how to do the tests in the field that is up to them like I said I only want to prove that dowsing isn't what you think it is ....So, you were only using half your brain when you 100% agreed to all the test conditions in your first test with Randi and the JREF?
And here you try to make fun of my sentence, again discredit the witness approach!Hey look! It's edge trying to garner sympathy by prenending to be a victim! :)

Many miss spellings in that quote.[quote]Ah, changing the topic I see.

[quote] Then you’ll lose that million, and make sure I'm not cheating ok if I do cheat I'm sure there will be a big write up about that, I’m sure of it.Nothing less than a fair re-test setup with JREF and agreed to by both parties will be acceptable proof for us. And of course you'll make sure no such test ever occurs by finding excuses to disagree with the test terms or local.

We see right through you edge.

There are boulders and over- burden to take the place of cups but we could try that too,Yeah, we know it would be impossible to do something simple like put the gold in soft bags or perhaps stick the mugs to the "boulders" with putty or something. More potential excuses here.

For the idiot that said why follow me into the field, James and the foundation are richWhat makes you think Randi is "rich". He can't touch the million and he lives mainly by speaking engagements. The finances almost cause this board to cease existance and money is being raised to keep it that way. If the JREF and Randi were &q